Hydrogen and the future....WTF?

[warcrow]

A friend and I are having a debate on Hydrogen and cars. Let me get this straight?

Hydrogen can be acquired by two means:

- You extract it via hydrocarbons resulting in a lot carbons expelled into the air.

- The second way, you split H2O which requires a lot of electricity, only resulting in more work for coal-burning plants which completely removes all the benefits of the "clean" fuel.

- Hydrogen leaks a lot and turns steel brittle.

So riddle me this, Batman. Why in the hell does anyone think this is a GOOD idea for cars? There has to be some company lined up to benefit huge from this, right? Anyone else knowledgeable about this?

 

[Cattlegod]

nuclear energy to split water.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: warcrow
A friend and I are having a debate on Hydrogen and cars. Let me get this straight?

Hydrogen can be acquired by two means:

- You extract it via hydrocarbons resulting in a lot carbons expelled into the air.

- The second way, you split H2O which requires a lot of electricity, only resulting in more work for coal-burning plants which completely removes all the benefits of the "clean" fuel.

- Hydrogen leaks a lot and turns steel brittle.

So riddle me this, Batman. Why in the hell does anyone think this is a GOOD idea for cars? There has to be some company lined up to benefit huge from this, right? Anyone else knowledgeable about this?

liquid hydrogen is a great idea for cars futures. the conversion from a normal engine to a hydrogen burning engine isnt that great, its the same concept still. also, GM already has a lot invested into it, i believe GM and BMW may have been working together, but i forget.

MIKE

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
nuclear energy to split water.

And they'll be building new nuclear power plants when?

Solar or wind energy to split water.

Also, the efficiency of a power plant is much higher than that of a gas automobile. And, per unit of power, far less polluting. Thus, it does make sense to displace where the fossil fuels are burned. However, I don't know the efficiency of cars running on hydrogen.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
nuclear energy to split water.

lol... funny when written like that

 

[crazeinc]

Hydrogen cars are extremely inefficient at this point in the game. Hopefully somebody will figure it out sooner than later so we don't have to invade any more countries in the middle east

 

[warcrow]

hrmm.....

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
nuclear energy to split water.

And they'll be building new nuclear power plants when?

Solar or wind energy to split water.

Also, the efficiency of a power plant is much higher than that of a gas automobile. And, per unit of power, far less polluting. Thus, it does make sense to displace where the fossil fuels are burned. However, I don't know the efficiency of cars running on hydrogen.

True.

I'm curious about the efficiency either.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: warcrow
A friend and I are having a debate on Hydrogen and cars. Let me get this straight?

Hydrogen can be acquired by two means:

- You extract it via hydrocarbons resulting in a lot carbons expelled into the air.

- The second way, you split H2O which requires a lot of electricity, only resulting in more work for coal-burning plants which completely removes all the benefits of the "clean" fuel.

- Hydrogen leaks a lot and turns steel brittle.

So riddle me this, Batman. Why in the hell does anyone think this is a GOOD idea for cars? There has to be some company lined up to benefit huge from this, right? Anyone else knowledgeable about this?

BMW thinks it's good.

Therefore it must be good.

 

[Mo0o]

it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

except that the second hydrogen hit the air it would become so "diluted" that there would be VERY little possibility.

and gas isnt combustible???

isnt it being combustible the whole point of using it in an internal COMBUSTION engine?

MIKE

 

[Linux23]

It's a BAD idea actually.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

except that the second hydrogen hit the air it would become so "diluted" that there would be VERY little possibility.

and gas isnt combustible???

isnt it being combustible the whole point of using it in an internal COMBUSTION engine?

MIKE

if you have concetrated H2 and it hits the air, it will combust. H2 has an incredibly low flashpoint so it will burn at all ambient temps. you can have gasoline sitting around without it spontaneously combusting.

 

[phonemonkey]

- The second way, you split H2O which requires a lot of electricity, only resulting in more work for coal-burning plants which completely removes all the benefits of the "clean" fuel.

Not everyone in the country relies on coal-burning plants for electricity. A majority of the plants in the west, IIRC, use either hydroelectric, nuclear, or natural gas to run. There are impacts for each one, but they're alot less polluting than coal-burning power plants.

Also, there have been some suggestions of using solar panels in the southwest to help provide the electricity locally (ie: within a few miles) to split the hydrogen from the water.

As far as why this is a good idea, think about this: an internal combustion engine is very inefficient (~90% of the energy produced is lost as heat), whereas a fuel cell is very efficient >90% of energy can be used, and the only by product is water.

There have been stories recently of companies that are working on cars that can acheive upwards of 10,000 miles before needing to be refueled. Does that sound like a bad idea to you?

Edit: Link for the 11,000 mile claim - BBC link

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
liquid hydrogen is a great idea for cars futures. the conversion from a normal engine to a hydrogen burning engine isnt that great, its the same concept still. also, GM already has a lot invested into it, i believe GM and BMW may have been working together, but i forget.

MIKE

Hydrogen doesn't liquify unless it is either a small fraction of a degree above absolute zero, or it is held at a pressure similar to the bottom of the ocean, maybe greater. In other words, you will never have liquid hydrogen in a car - ever.

Hydrogen fuel cells basically refers to batteries, and efficiency of the vehicle can be improved by using magnetic brakes to store the kinetic energy being lost when braking into the battery rather than using conventional brakes which would just convet the KE to heat. Also in theory, the energy production process used for the electric outlet when you plug the car in to charge the battery could be more efficient than a normal combustion engine. I.E. Nuclear->electric-> charge car battery is a lot more likely scenario than getting nuclear power into a car.

 

[warcrow]

Hrm, didnt realize the 10,000 mile refule point. But, what about the extra carbons that get cute lose into the air during the hydrogen creation process? I'm being serious, not a smarta$$.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

except that the second hydrogen hit the air it would become so "diluted" that there would be VERY little possibility.

and gas isnt combustible???

isnt it being combustible the whole point of using it in an internal COMBUSTION engine?

MIKE

Hydrogen will be stored under enormous pressure, far more than that used with gasoline, as hydrogen will evaporate if not kept under such conditions.

Perhaps the gas will become diluted, but it will still be dangerous as hell.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
liquid hydrogen is a great idea for cars futures. the conversion from a normal engine to a hydrogen burning engine isnt that great, its the same concept still. also, GM already has a lot invested into it, i believe GM and BMW may have been working together, but i forget.

MIKE

Hydrogen doesn't liquify unless it is either a small fraction of a degree above absolute zero, or it is held at a pressure similar to the bottom of the ocean, maybe greater. In other words, you will never have liquid hydrogen in a car - ever.

Hydrogen fuel cells basically refers to batteries, and efficiency of the vehicle can be improved by using magnetic brakes to store the kinetic energy being lost when braking into the battery rather than using conventional brakes which would just convet the KE to heat. Also in theory, the energy production process used for the electric outlet when you plug the car in to charge the battery could be more efficient than a normal combustion engine. I.E. Nuclear->electric-> charge car battery is a lot more likely scenario than getting nuclear power into a car.

bullshit.

thats the only way they are getting hydrogen to work for cars. i do believe that is exactly what they are planning on doing. hence why they are planning on using robots to fuel cars up.

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_255.shtml there is one liquid hydrogen car in that list. but it happens to be a fuel cell and not an ICE

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_391.shtml more info on how liquid h2 will be used.

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_534.shtml bmw is banking on liquid h2.

thanks.

MIKE

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

except that the second hydrogen hit the air it would become so "diluted" that there would be VERY little possibility.

and gas isnt combustible???

isnt it being combustible the whole point of using it in an internal COMBUSTION engine?

MIKE

Hydrogen will be stored under enormous pressure, far more than that used with gasoline, as hydrogen will evaporate if not kept under such conditions.

Perhaps the gas will become diluted, but it will still be dangerous as hell.

exactly, an accident w/ hydrogen gas is much more dangerous than w/ gasoline

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1

Originally posted by: Mo0o
it's not a good idea right now, hydrogen is extremely combustible so if there was a car accident it would well.. suck.

except that the second hydrogen hit the air it would become so "diluted" that there would be VERY little possibility.

and gas isnt combustible???

isnt it being combustible the whole point of using it in an internal COMBUSTION engine?

MIKE

Hydrogen will be stored under enormous pressure, far more than that used with gasoline, as hydrogen will evaporate if not kept under such conditions.

Perhaps the gas will become diluted, but it will still be dangerous as hell.

exactly, an accident w/ hydrogen gas is much more dangerous than w/ gasoline

Even without the hygrogen, the pressure used in a metallic container, applied to a potential projectile would be danjerous as hell

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
[
http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_255.shtml there is one liquid hydrogen car in that list. but it happens to be a fuel cell and not an ICE

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_391.shtml more info on how liquid h2 will be used.

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_534.shtml bmw is banking on liquid h2.

And if you read through those completely you'll see they are talking about "a liquid fuel containing hydrogen" (i.e. propane or other hydrocarbons) and not pure hydrogen liquid.

To liquify hydrogen at room temperature takes 150,000 psi. I worked out this is the same as below 64 miles of water -- does it even get that deep anywhere? What kind of container would you suggest to withstand this pressure, without the container itself liquifying or reacting with the concentrated hydrogen?

 

[pnho]

instead of using hydrogen gas, other companies are researching in converting methanol into hydrogen for use, and even converting solid metal hydride into usable hydrogen. This concept avoids the pressurized tanks of 10,000+ psi that are being used.

In response to warcrow's question of pollution associated with generating hydrogen gas via coal, this process will cause about the same if not more pollution then what we have now. However, using coal as the current source will allow for a quicker infrastructure change from petro gas to hydro gas. Once the infrastructure is setup, cleaner and more efficient means of producing hydrogen can be addressed. The extra pollution comes from using current facilities available without building newer more technological advanced means of producing hydrogen.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: pnho
instead of using hydrogen gas, other companies are researching in converting methanol into hydrogen for use, and even converting solid metal hydride into usable hydrogen. This concept avoids the pressurized tanks of 10,000+ psi that are being used.

In response to warcrow's question of pollution associated with generating hydrogen gas via coal, this process will cause about the same if not more pollution then what we have now. However, using coal as the current source will allow for a quicker infrastructure change from petro gas to hydro gas. Once the infrastructure is setup, cleaner and more efficient means of producing hydrogen can be addressed. The extra pollution comes from using current facilities available without building newer more technological advanced means of producing hydrogen.

I hate to say this but, they have been experimenting with that since 1980. They have basically given up on it. The tanks used to hold the metal are very heavy and cannot hold that much hydrogen. Refilling is a pain and the vehicles are very heavy because of said tanks. Its just a bad idea IMHO.

As to the others making silly statements: hydrogen doesn't evaporate like water does. It is lighter than air and rises until it leaves our atmosphere. Related to this is the fear of fire. Because its lighter than air the flash will be quick and done in seconds. The amount of burning would be minimal. Fears of hydrogen were caused by the Hindenburgh, but the fires were caused by the fuel that was used for directional control exploding, not hydrogen itself.

 

[rgwalt]

Containment is an issue, but there is research being done on alternative strategies.

Hydrolisys (extracting from water using electricity) isn't a good way to make hydrogen. The prefered way is using hydrocarbons. The difference between burning hydrocarbons in your car, and reforming them to make hydrogen at a chemical plant is that the carbon released from the process can be SEQUESTERED at the chemical plant to limit/eliminate CO2 emissions. I'm guessing that there will be an efficiency improvement, though I can't comment on that necessarily because I don't have those facts off the top of my head.

R

 

[warcrow]

I'm really enjoying this thread.